[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 57 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2015-H2020]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison, and I will claim
the time on behalf of the Progressive Caucus. This is the Progressive
Caucus' moment where we come together and talk about our ideals, our
values, the things that are critically important, we believe, to all
Americans.
This week, I'm joined by two outstanding leaders in the Progressive
Caucus and in the Congress and in America, Hank Johnson of Georgia and
Lynn Woolsey of California. I want to invite both of my colleagues to
jump in as they feel inspired to do so, but let me just set the
groundwork a little bit.
This week, we saw a number of things occur. One of the things that we
saw this week is the Buffett rule that
[[Page H2016]]
was taken up in the Senate. The Senate voted on the Buffett rule on a
policy that requires millionaires and billionaires to pay the same tax
rates as middle class families and working people.
I want to make it clear: we don't begrudge anybody for doing well;
but we do believe, in a country as great as America, if you have been
privileged enough to do well, that maybe you should do something for
America. This wildly popular measure was filibustered and therefore
defeated in the Senate. According to the CNN international poll, nearly
three-fourths of Americans support the Buffett rule and believe it
should be law. Despite this, Republicans in the Senate blocked the bill
from even getting a majority vote.
I mention this particular situation this way as I begin our dialogue
that we'll have tonight over the course of this hour because I think
that this is emblematic of the problem that we're facing today. We're
going to talk tonight about Citizens United; we'll talk about a lot of
things. But one of the things that I think is emblematic of the problem
we're facing here in the U.S. Congress today is that what the
overwhelming majority of Americans want the overwhelming majority of
Americans don't get, something like the Buffett rule. The reason why is
the pernicious and corrosive effect of money in politics today.
So, we are the Progressive Caucus. We're honored to be before the
American people today, Mr. Speaker. We are the caucus that, yes, will
stand up for civil and human rights for all people without regard to
your color, your culture, your sex, your gender, your sexual
preference, your religion, wherever you were born--national origin. We
believe that all Americans are valued and believe in liberty and
justice for all.
Yes, the Progressive Caucus is the caucus that's going to say that if
you work hard every day, you ought to be able to make enough money to
feed your family in America. And, yes, we believe that if you've been
able to be in this great country of ours and do well in this
environment, you ought to do something, you ought to pay enough taxes
so that the needs and the costs of our society can be paid for. And,
absolutely, we believe we have a duty and obligation, a responsibility
to the environment and our natural world.
Now, we're not ashamed to stand up for these values: peace, working-
class prosperity and fairness, environmental sustainability, and civil
and human rights for all people. We care about these things and we're
going to. But today, we're going to discuss a number of issues,
including the Buffett rule, Citizens United, ALEC, the budget, the Ryan
budget, and a whole range of issues.
At this point I'm going to hand it over to my colleague and friend,
Lynn Woolsey of California.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I'd like to thank the chairman of the Progressive Caucus
for bringing this together today to talk about what's so important to
the people of the United States of America, our country, and in turn
the world.
I want to say a few things about the Buffett rule just to fill out
that discussion. There are some things we know: the Buffett rule is
fiscally responsible. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the
Buffett rule could reduce the deficit by anywhere from $47 billion to
$162 billion over the next decade. The Buffett rule is widely
supported, as the chairman just said. The Buffett rule would restore
the principled fairness of the Tax Code because it ensures that
millionaires can't game the system to pay a lower rate than middle
class families.
Overwhelming majorities of Americans across the political spectrum
believe millionaires should pay their fair share. An overwhelming 76
percent of Americans support increasing the taxes paid by people who
make more than $1 million per year, which includes 75 percent of
Independents and 56 percent of Republicans.
{time} 1440
The majority of millionaires themselves support the Buffett rule. In
a recent poll of millionaires, an overwhelming 68 percent support the
Buffett rule. Millionaires support the Buffett rule.
And remember, it's taxation above $1 million and it's stepped up. It
isn't the minute you hit $1 million you're taxed at a much greater
rate. It's over. From $1 million up, the taxes will go up.
Seven thousand millionaires paid no individual income taxes in the
year 2011. Seven thousand millionaires didn't pay any personal taxes in
2011. According to the Tax Policy Center, 7,000 millionaires--it was
that tax center that told us that.
The Republican budget would shower even more tax breaks on
millionaires while putting more of the burden on the middle-class
families. While Democrats are fighting to restore fairness in the Tax
Code, the Republican budget offers extreme right-wing alternatives--
that's my opinion--that would shower millionaires and billionaires with
tax breaks at the expense of the middle class, and that would further
skew the system in favor of the wealthiest Americans.
So we've got a lot of statistics. We know the facts. We're ready to
support the Buffett rule. Millionaires, themselves, support it. So the
question is: Why can't we get the people we work with in the U.S.
Congress to support the Buffett rule?
Mr. ELLISON. Well, I would say this to the gentlelady. You know, much
of it has to do with the fact that we have a disproportionate
percentage of wealthy interests. The fact is you've got money coming
in, lobbyists paid for, campaign donations, all this stuff, and now
we've got the onset of the super PAC and we have the Citizens United
decision.
And if you ask yourself why can't we pass the Buffett rule, why can't
we pass the public option, which is wildly popular, why can't we get
environmental regulations we need to protect our lungs and our health
and our Earth, why can't we do these things, and the reason why is
because of the disproportionate corrosive effect of money in our
government.
This is why earlier this week we were able to pass something, a
Declaration for Democracy, which reads:
I declare my support for amending the Constitution of the
United States to restore the rights of people undermined by
Citizens United and related cases, to protect the integrity
of our elections and limit the corrosive influence of money
on the democratic process.
We have a lot of people who signed this particular document. But not
just Members of Congress signed it. Some people who signed it were city
council members, were community citizen activists. There are people
from a broad cross section of American life, because they asked the
same question you ask, Congresswoman Woolsey: Why can't we pass the
Buffett rule? Why can't we pass environmental protections? Why can't we
pass the public option? Why can't things that Americans want get
through?
The reason they can't get through is because you've got the lobbyist
money being poured in. You've got campaign donations here. You're about
to see a whole plethora of ugly, nasty, divisive, corrosive attack ads
in this upcoming Presidential election.
The bottom line is, if we get this money out, what will happen is
that citizens' voices will emerge past the money. Citizens' voices will
come up, and citizens will have their will reflected in the Congress
more so.
It was an awesome lift to pick up health care, and we didn't even get
all the things we wanted in there, but we got a lot of things we
wanted.
But why didn't we get all the things we wanted even though they were
popular? The corrosive, divisive effect of money.
I think the health care industry was putting in, like, $14 million a
day to lobby against the Affordable Care Act. And of course you know
with all that kind of pushing and shoving and cajoling, it just gets
incredibly difficult.
So I want to yield back to the gentleman from Georgia, who has some
important information about a number of things.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I'd first like to address, Congressman, the
issue of taxes and fair taxes. Yesterday, or, actually, the day before
yesterday, I stood with a group of ``Fair Taxers,'' people who are
recommending the fair tax as an alternative to our current system. And
I stood with them and I spoke to them, told them that I was not there
to endorse the fair tax; I was there to tell them that I believed that
it was something that Congress should definitely study. We shouldn't
just put it aside.
[[Page H2017]]
There's no doubt that we need fundamental tax reform in this country,
and the fair tax is a vehicle to open the door for Congress to start
reviewing other possibilities, including the fair tax, as a way of
fixing our inherently unequal Tax Code. And our policies--if we can't
pass the Buffett rule, which simply says that a millionaire would not
pay a less effective rate than working people, and so, in other words,
the maids and the butlers and everyone else who--the secretary----
Mr. ELLISON. The police officers.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Cops who patrol the area, the security
guards----
Mr. ELLISON. Teachers, nurses.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia.--that control the estate of these rich folks,
the firefighters, ambulances that will come pick them up, they don't
pay the same tax rates as those people.
And 70,000 of the millionaires in the country didn't pay a dime in
income tax, and enjoying all of those benefits--police, fire. It's
truly amazing to me that we are still not at the point in this country
where we are willing to consider redoing our complicated Tax Code.
It's just ridiculous that it's not working. And we can't even pass a
bill in this Congress which mandates that common people pay at a rate
that is not in excess of those that the millionaires enjoy. That's just
an issue of fairness. It's not fair. It's not right.
I would suggest to you, Congressman and Congresswoman, that perhaps
the reason why we're seeing this kind of favorable treatment afforded
to millionaires by this Congress is because almost half of the incoming
freshmen, I understand, are millionaires. I think the figure is about
43 percent. And if someone can correct me on that, I'd stand corrected.
But my information is 43 percent of the Tea Party freshmen are
millionaires, and so they benefit from these laws, these trickle-down
economics laws, and they've been enjoying them since 1980. That's when
voodoo economics, as George Herbert Walker Bush called it, trickle-down
economics, voodoo economics, or whatever you want to call it, it has
not worked. But we still have proposals today to make it work.
And it's evident by what we did today, with a $46 billion tax cut for
what's called ``small businesses,'' but, actually, a small business
with 500 employees, when we only have about 1,000 businesses in the
country with 1,000 or more employees. So we're actually talking about
big business when we talk about 500 employees.
It's a one-time, 1-year, $46 billion tax cut that they get, according
to this legislation that we passed today, and it's totally unpaid for.
{time} 1450
Ms. WOOLSEY. I want to add a couple of things about the Buffett rule.
There is so much to talk about that, I'm sure, our C SPAN viewers and
probably most of the Members of Congress really don't realize.
The 400 highest-earning Americans in 2008, who made an average each
of $271 million, paid an average effective Federal tax rate of just
18.1 percent. At the same time, a married couple earning $70,000 a year
paid a rate of 25 percent. Is that just unbelievable?
Mr. ELLISON. Amazing.
Ms. WOOLSEY. The Buffett rule seeks to restore balance to families,
and the Tax Code would make sure that no millionaire would pay a lower
tax rate than middle class Americans. In fact, the Buffett rule is
targeted. The legislation will only impact taxpayers with a taxable
income of over $1 million who are not paying a minimum tax rate of 30
percent. So realize that. Of the 144 million tax returns filed in 2010,
fewer than 500,000 of them--0.1 percent of the taxpayers--had taxable
incomes of over $1 million. Remember, these are taxable incomes because
there are lots of write-offs.
Mr. ELLISON. So the people who have the kind of money you just
described are actually a small part of the population, but I think
they're punching above their weight because they have an inordinate
influence in the political process.
Ms. WOOLSEY. You're right. They have an influence in the political
process, and average working Americans don't realize that that's not
them. The families who earn $70,000 a year are taxed on that at a rate
of 25 percent.
Mr. ELLISON. So, if you're making 70k a year, paying 25 percent of
your income in income taxes, that means, if there is an increase in
your property taxes, you're really going to feel that. That's going to
punch you right in the stomach. That's going to make a difference in
whether the kids can get braces or not. That's going to make a
difference as to whether or not you can put a roof on the house. It
will make a huge difference. $70,000 is actually doing pretty well, but
small variations can change your life.
If you're a two-income household and are making $70,000 and if one of
the partners in the relationship gets sick or dies, that means
catastrophic expenses on the family because, if you're spending at a
$70,000-a-year level and you lose a household member, you've got all
those bills with just the one person, and then you're going to be in
bankruptcy. This is why we know 56 percent of all bankruptcy filings
are driven by medical debt. This is how this happens even to middle
class people. But the Buffett rule and putting Americans to work and
doing a lot of things are really what the Progressive Caucus is all
about. It's about addressing these systemic problems we're talking
about today.
So I just want to let everybody know, if you want to check out what
the Progressive Caucus says about the Buffett rule, you should know
that we have the Buffett rule contained in our budget.
We put America back to work by front-loading jobs in our budget. We
invest in America's future by investing in infrastructure, and we
reduce the deficit, in part, by asking the wealthiest and most
privileged Americans to do the patriotic thing and pony up a little bit
more to help America.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. It's disturbing to me, with all that the
Congressional Progressive Caucus has done to try to level the playing
field in this country for working men and women, that we would all be
lumped together and called names.
I want you to comment about one of our colleagues who, in response to
a question asked of him--how many Communists are there in the United
States Congress?--this Congressman stepped up to the mike in a calm and
polite manner--thoughtful-looking, with a pensive look on his face--and
he said, I believe that there are between 78 and 81 members of the
Communist Party who are Members of Congress.
Now, can you respond to that, Congressman?
Mr. ELLISON. Do you know what? I have to demur and say that I'm not
that excited to respond. I've responded on Ed Schultz. I've responded
on Wolf Blitzer. I've responded on Martin Brashir, and I've just said
it's not true. It's a false statement. It's untrue. It's unfair. It's
unkind. It raises the level of vitriol and insult in this body, and of
course, it's tough enough around here already. We don't need to hurl
false accusations against each other.
I would just urge the public to remind Members of Congress that we
need to have a little bit more civility around here and that, if you do
want to make an ugly comment or a negative comment about your
colleagues, at least try to make it somewhere within 10,000 miles of
being true. This is absolutely false.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Sir, the next day, a statement was released
by the gentleman. The statement was to the effect that the entire
membership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are card-carrying
members of the Communist Party. I just think that it's important that
we say, first of all, that that's not true and, secondly, that it has
no place in the rational dialogue and in the honest dialogue that we
seek to have here amongst us on both sides of the aisle. It has no
place.
Mr. ELLISON. One thing I don't want to do--and I'm just speaking for
me. If he calls us names, I'm not going to call him names. If he calls
us names, I'm not going to call them ugly names like that. There are a
lot of ugly names that you could call someone who has a right-wing
perspective on the extreme. We don't engage in tit for tat, because
that's childlike. We're adults. We're here to discharge a
responsibility on behalf of the American people. We swore an oath to
uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, and that is what I'm going to
do. I'm not going to be distracted by somebody who is not clear on what
we're supposed to be doing here. I'm going to stay focused on what
we're here to do.
[[Page H2018]]
Ms. WOOLSEY. I would like to say, by caring about American workers,
by caring about women and children, by caring about our seniors, by
wanting to put food on the tables of all Americans and help them with
clean air and good food and clean water, if that labels us, so be it.
All that says to me is somebody is very frightened about the good
things we do. I think we should move on now.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Congresswoman, I agree.
I also want to point out that to label folks as Communists and
Socialists just because they believe in fairness for the working people
of this country is not true, and I think that it should be called out
because, if it's left unaddressed, then some folks will think it's
true.
With that, I certainly would love for us to get into a discussion
about Citizens United, Congresswoman.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you.
I believe that it's evermore important that we do something about the
Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which overturns
nearly 100 years of campaign finance laws in this country which limit
corporation involvement in political campaigns.
{time} 1500
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend.
Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 5, 2011, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) will control the remainder of the
hour as the designee of the minority leader.
Ms. WOOLSEY. In that action by the Supreme Court, big business was
given a louder voice than the individual in this country. If we want to
protect our democracy, that's what we have to bring an end to, all that
money coming into the political system without transparency and making
the average citizen feel like their voice means nothing.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Congresswoman, I believe that you have hit
the nail on the head. This Citizens United ruling by the United States
Supreme Court definitely puts corporations in a position of superiority
over just the regular working people of this country. The reason why is
because corporations have now been afforded the same rights that
individuals have, to speak freely and with no regulation. Congress
refuses to even consider any regulations on that speech for purposes of
campaigning and affecting the outcome of campaigns.
This is a decision that is devastating to the working people of this
country, the people who don't have a voice like the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce or like some unknown super PAC that is formed on the eve of an
election, funded anonymously, and used to affect an election and used
in such a way that you can't even mount a response to it because the
cascade of money is in that PAC and you have the slightest ability to
raise the requisite amount of money to match it. They control the
outcome of these elections with the money, and that is a devastating
blow to our democracy.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Hank, the entire time I've been in the Congress--I mean,
I've been here for 20 years now, and we've had a Republican majority
and we've had a Democrat majority. But when the Republicans have been
in the majority, they use as part of their mantra that they are
returning government to the people.
Excuse me. Citizens United takes government away from the people. I
don't hear them trying to change that. They--the other side of the
aisle, the party in the majority right now--seem to be defending
Citizens United.
The other thing they are doing at this moment is they are trying to
upend the Presidential campaign finance system. They want to drown out
the voice of the people and give more power to the well-heeled special
interests in the Presidential elections as well. Those elections go
quite well with public financing. People choose on their tax form
whether or not they want to give to the Presidential elections.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Congresswoman, that was something that has
happened this year that perhaps not a lot of people know about is that,
under this Republican-controlled 112th Congress, the House has voted to
do away with or abolish the $1 checkoff on a tax form that you send in.
You can check the box and it will automatically deduct a dollar from
the amount that you owe or the amount of whatever refund you're
entitled to. That $1 then goes into a pot to be distributed among the
candidates who applied for this funding.
So everything that had been put in place to try to make everything
equal, along with giving people their rights to invest to a certain
amount in campaign-related donations, everything is being dismantled
systematically. It certainly does not help the people on our side of
the aisle, the Democratic side of the aisle, who traditionally have
depended on workers unions and labor organizations to be the deep
pockets for our campaign contributions.
I had a visit from one of my good friends in labor the other day back
in my district, and this gentleman has grown to be a good friend of
mine. He's a good man. He is a full-time union worker, works for the
union, the administrative part of the union, not just represented by
the union. He told me that with all of the people in the union who are
out of work today--and we've got a few jobs in the Atlanta area that
are near completion. After completion, even those workers who are able
to work won't have any more work, and then there's nothing else on the
agenda that these people can go and get jobs at.
He said it's gotten so bad with the attacks on labor and the
unemployment to where the workers represented by the union can't pay
the dues, and then the moneys having been drawn down by the unions to
take care of the workers to assist them during this extended period of
unemployment are on the decline and almost exhausted. After telling me
that, he said, Today is my last day employed at the union because they
had to let me go. We both sat there and we cried.
It was really touching, because that gentleman is in the same boat
that many other workers are in, and the union which represents those
workers is suffering greatly. They won't be able to do what they have
done in the past for campaigns. But these super PACs and wealthy
individuals who fund them--anonymously, much of the time--can afford to
actually put millions in and billions in. This is a very serious
situation that we face in this country.
Who's going to win, is it money or is it the people?
Ms. WOOLSEY. Congressman, the one beacon of light in the system is
the public financing of Presidential campaigns. I have to remind
everybody, that's voluntary. People volunteer $1 a year out of their
tax return to support the public financing of the Presidential races.
They have to opt to do that. They don't have to. It's served our
country well, and it's a very limited expense. It needs updating. It
doesn't need dismantling. We need more public financing of our Federal
election, not less.
Actually, if I had my way, we would have public financing, we would
have a much shorter campaign season, and we would also publicly finance
advertising as well as set spending limits and not turn campaigns--it's
an industry in this country now that certainly employs thousands and
thousands of people. But it spends a lot of our time and individual
money in order to get people elected.
{time} 1510
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Yes. I would echo those comments,
Congresswoman. You know, Members around here, some folks spend 60, 70
percent of their time, instead of being in committee meetings, they are
out making phone calls trying to raise money for their next election.
It's not, it doesn't augur well for the country's future for us to
have, you know, this kind of leadership, in other words, leadership
that depends on others to make the decision. They come in, vote on it,
and then go back to the phones making calls.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Right. I have been so fortunate because I represent a
district that I fit. You know I'm retiring, but I have represented this
district for 20 years, and I have fit so well that I have not had to
raise millions of dollars.
I have watched my colleagues who are in these districts that could go
either way and where now Citizens United has brought this super-PAC
[[Page H2019]]
money in against them, and I don't know how they do it. I mean, what a
way to ruin our democracy, to have the people you elect to represent
you spend much of their time raising money instead of raising
consciousness, instead of raising issues, instead of fighting for what
we know needs to be done in this country.
This corrupt campaign finance system we have, with the special
interest money, is going to actually corrode our democracy. If we don't
step up to it on both sides of the aisle, everybody is going to be
affected by it, not just Democrats.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, I am going to tell you, Congresswoman
Woolsey, that's why I am going to hate to see you leave, and I know you
have been here for 20 years. That's a long time to be anywhere. You
have certainly been an unrelenting spokesperson for equity and fairness
for all, and you have been a voice for peace, and you have been a voice
for telling the truth. You are, indeed, a rare breed in Congress, and
I'm personally going to miss you, and I know many others will too.
But I'll tell you, Congresswoman, there are people on the other side
of the aisle and some, I know, feel the same way that we do. They don't
like the way or the route that our country is going. We've even had
some good people over there who have already been defeated for
reelection based on that special interest money coming in at the last
minute, shaking things up and telling a bunch of lies, and then the
public votes a good Representative out.
I think people on both sides of the aisle are being hurt by what's
happening in America right now, and I'm hopeful that this next election
will see the kind of change that needs to come here. We need to take
care of the people's business. This is their Congress, this is not the
corporations' Congress. We should be of, by and for the people, not of,
by and for the corporate special interests.
You know, I'm afraid that's where we are now. I, myself, have been
fortunate so far to be in sync with the people of my district and so,
consequently, I've not been forced to go out there and raise a billion
dollars, but I still have to raise money.
I would prefer a system where I could just be a legislator and we
could have a fairness in our elections, everyone starting with the same
amount of money to spend; and that way it's not the money, it's your
message that counts.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Right. If everybody has a certain amount of time on air,
they can spend it putting down their opponent, or they can spend that
time letting their constituents know who they are. If they want to be
negative, they can do it the way they want to, but they will probably
find out it's much more wholesome and people will like them a lot
better when they know them for who they are and not as put-down
artists.
When you say there's folks from the other side of the aisle, and I'm
sure there are, I think that it's our job now to pull together a core
here in the Congress who are willing to limit the influence of
contributors and who are willing to curb the power of political action
committees and impose spending limits and not let corporate America
have a bigger voice than the average voter.
Somehow or another, I think it's going to be possible, but it's going
to take leaders like yourself, Hank, to make that happen, so I'll be
cheering for you.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, I believe you are right about that. But
I will say, though, those moderates on the other side of the aisle who
I am referring to are the prime targets of the interests that want to
get rid of them and go to an extreme. So folks over here on the
Republican side of the aisle are forced to comply with the party line
or else they'll suffer the consequences.
Even when they follow the party line here, they think, okay, well, we
don't trust this person over here because there's some new blood over
here that talks much more extremely, and so we want to get rid of that
person here and put this new person in.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, if we eliminate special interest money, if we have
the Declaration for Democracy and have a constitutional change, the
United States Constitution regarding this Citizens United action of the
Supreme Court, I think we can help turn that around.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, you know, Congresswoman, you lead into
the Declaration for Democracy, which I had the pleasure to sign
yesterday, along with many of my other colleagues; and I am sure that
the longer that this is around, the more that people will sign up. Have
you had an opportunity to sign?
Ms. WOOLSEY. I signed the little card. I haven't signed that one, but
I'm looking why aren't I on there. I mean, that's how much I support
it.
Actually, Leader Pelosi has signed the declaration. It's very well
received in the Congress.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I'm going to read it. It's the Declaration
for Democracy, and it reads as follows:
I declare my support for amending the Constitution of the United
States to restore the rights of the American people undermined by
Citizens United and related cases, to protect the integrity of our
elections, and limit the corrosive influence of money in our democratic
process.
Anytime we start talking about putting limits on any activity and
creating more fairness, then we get labeled as socialists and
communists and we're just people that care. I don't care what you call
it, we're in support of this Declaration for Democracy, which would put
the reins of government back into the hands of working people, poor
people, everyone. Even the corporations would have a seat at the table,
but they would not speak any louder than you or I; and I think it's
very important. So I was proud to sign the Declaration for Democracy.
We are in a climate where we have an organization that is set up to
connect the corporate influence, the corporate money, the special
interests. We have an organization that is set up to pair those special
interest corporations with legislators from the various State
legislatures of the Nation.
{time} 1520
About 60 percent of the legislators in the United States--the State
legislators--have joined this organization. It's called ALEC. ALEC is
the American Legislative Exchange Council. And what ALEC does is it's
funded, of course, by business interests, billionaires and
millionaires, and companies. What it does is it invites the legislators
to join. It really entices them to join by offering them for a mere $50
a year--and the taxpayers, of course, pay that--as a professional fee
or professional cost. And so the legislators join. Then he or she gets
to go off on these 2- and 3-day weekends at some location like Hilton
Head or Jekyll Island or Martha's Vineyard, Los Angeles, Las Vegas,
wherever they can be alone and with some anonymity and in a luxurious
setting.
So these legislators who join go to these locations for the retreats.
The business interests are there because they're underwriting it. And
then they get together in committees, and the committees work out
various model laws that are produced before the folks even get there.
They're told about these model laws in the committees that they work
on--the committees being the legislators and the business interests.
And the public's interest is not there. It's all done in secret.
And so the result is that the legislators come home, and they have
legislation which they can claim as, This is my legislation and I'm
introducing it. And, By the way, this is my 80th piece of legislation
that I have introduced and it has passed and I'm a busy substantive
legislator.
So it makes them look good out there on the campaign trail. Nobody
knows what the substance of that legislation is and what it actually
does and how much it costs. And then, for introducing that legislation,
the legislator is rewarded with a campaign contribution also from the
same corporations and individuals associated with those corporations.
So based on that formula right there you've got business being done
behind closed doors to benefit folks other than the people who elect
these legislators, and then you never know who those legislators are
because that's private information. They keep it private. But if you're
a member, you can log into
[[Page H2020]]
the Web site and then go to a page and find out who all of the
corporate and who all the legislative members are. You can only get
access to that if you're a member. And to become a member you have to
be prescreened in advance to make sure that you are like-minded. And if
you can pass that muster, they will let you in.
So this is the same organization that announced yesterday that they
would not be involving themselves--they're disbanding their committee
that had to do with social issues, as they call them, including voter
rights. And so the Trayvon Martin killing, the shooting and killing of
Trayvon Martin and then the claim of self-defense, stand your ground,
but, really, shoot to kill legislation, that legislation was produced
by an ALEC committee.
I'm glad to know that committee will no longer be in action, but the
damage has already been done. As a result of that, you have had some
corporations that have decided that this is not--we didn't buy into
this. We didn't buy into this social thing. We just joined ALEC because
we wanted to deal on the committees that deal with our issues--taxes,
FDA, whatever. We wanted to deal on those things, but instead ALEC has
gone to an extreme.
Now we have corporations that are threatened with boycotts of their
goods and services jumping off the ALEC bandwagon, and that caused ALEC
to announce yesterday that, We're not going to deal in any more social
issues.
So I think that is instructive of the power of the people. If the
people only know what is happening, the people will come together,
despite the differences that we have. We can look at each other and
say, Okay, you are older than I am. Plus, you are a white woman. And
so, therefore, we don't have anything in common. Or I could say that
this person over here doesn't have the same sexual orientation as I
think they should and so therefore I'm going to condemn them to
purgatory just on that basis alone. Or we can look at somebody and say
Well, they've got a hoodie on. He's wearing a hoodie, and it's a black
guy in a neighborhood. He can be 9 years old, he can be 15, or he can
be 17; but he's still threatening me just by his mere presence. We size
people up like that.
But when we really get down to it, our interests are the same. And if
we can get past the fear that we have of each other and the
misunderstanding that we have about each other, we can come together
and we can reclaim this country so that it will be a government run by,
of, and for the people. And so that is my goal, to continue to work
towards that, if my citizens think that I'm worthy of continuing to do
that.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________